DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 379 339 TM 022 723

AUTHOR Melancon, Janet G.; Thompson, BruceTITLE An Adjectival Self-Description Checklist Evaluating

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Types: Concurrentand Construct Score Validity.

PUB DATE Nov 94NOTE 36p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Mid-South Educational Research Association(Nashville, TN, November 1994).

PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)Speeches /Conference Papers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Check Lists; *College Students; Higher Education;

*Measurement Techniques; *Personality Measures;Personality Traits; Reliability; *Scores; *Test Use;Validity

IDENTIFIERS Adjective Scales; Confirmatory Factor Analysis;Exploratory Factor Analysis; LISREL Computer Program;Myers Briggs Type Indicator; Personal PreferencesSelf Description Quest

ABSTRACTThis study was conducted to evaluate whether the

adjectival self-description checklist may provide a viable method ofquickly obtaining initial personality type information. The PersonalPreferences Self-Description Questionnaire (PPDSQ) was administeredto more than 420 college students, and data were analyzed usingclassical reliability analysis and both exploratory and LISRELconfirmatory factor analyses. Students also took the Myers BriggsType Indicator (MBTI). Results generally supported a conclusion thatPPSDQ scores are reasonably reliable and valid. Thirteen tables andtwo figures present details of the statistical analyses. An appendixpresents some descriptive MBTI statistics. (Contains 21 references.)(Author/SLD)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

enCR ppsdg2ms.wp1 11/4/94McrN

M U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION°Noce of Educational Research and Improvement

EOU TIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person Or organizationoriginating it

0 Minor changes have been made to imptOvereproduction Quality

PointS of view Or opinions staled in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent officialMMposmonormhCy

'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

hvomio.565/0

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).-

AN ADJECTIVAL SELF-DESCRIPTION CHECKLISTEVALUATING MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR (MBTI) TYPES:

CONCURRENT AND CONSTRUCT SCORE VALIDITY

Janet G. Melancon Bruce Thompson

Loyola University Texas A&M University 77843-4225and

Baylor College of Medicine

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-SouthEducational Research Association, Nashville, TN, November 10, 1994.

2

Abstract

The study was conducted to evaluate whether the adjectival self-

description checklist may provide a viable method of quickly

obtaining initial personality type information. The Personal

Preferences Self-Description Questionnaire (PPDSQ) was administered

to more than 420 college students, and data were analyzed using

classical reliability analysis and both exploratory and LISREL

confirmatory factor analyses. Results generally supported a

conclusion that PPSDQ scores are reasonably reliable and valid.

3

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is one of the most

frequently used measures of personality, as noted in various

reviews (cf. Thompson & Ackerman, 1994). This has been the case

for at least two reasons. First, unlike many personality measures,

the MBTI focuses on normal variations in personality, and because

more people have normal as against abnormal personality, the

measure may be useful with more people than measures of

psychopathology would be. Second, many counselors find that the

MBTI has enormous "face validity" for clients, i.e., that clients

understand the concepts implicit in the measure, tend to agree with

important aspects of type characterizations, and find the

information to be useful, free of value judgments, and non-

threatening.

McCaulley (1990) provides a concise and informed overview of

the MBTI, its history, and its uses. The forms of the MBTI were

developed over at least four decades.. Initial work was done by

Katherine C. Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers. Mary H.

McCaulley also made numerous contributions, and worked closely with

Isabel in projects such as the writing of the comprehensive MBTI

manual (Myers & McCaulley, 1985), which was published subsequent to

Myers' death in May, 1980.

The MBTI was developed with some grounding in the basic

precepts of Carl G. Jung's theory of psychological functions and

types. The theory presumes that "...much of the seemingly random

variation in behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent,

being due to basic differences in the way individuals prefer to use

1

4

their perception and judgment" (Myers & McCaulley, 1985, p. 1).

The MBTI is designed to measure four dimensions: Extraversion-

Introversion, Sensation-iNtuition, Thinking-Feeling, and Judgment-

Perception. In conventional usage, continuous scores are computed

on each dimension for each preference pole of the dimension (e.g.,

both Extraversion and Introversion on the EI dimension), and

persons are "typed" based on which style within each dimension is

preferred. Each individual is then classified into one of the 16

types formed from all possible combinations of the four scales,

e.g., ENTJ, ISTP,. and ENFP.

Unlike the other three dimensions, the JP construct is

implicit (rather than explicit) within Jung's theory.

Theoretically, people do have a general rank-order preference for

the four mental processes or functions of Sensing, iNtuition,

Thinking, and Feeling. Myers reasoned that JP scores--when taken

together with EI scores--would point to a person's dominant,

auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions (see McCaulley, 1990;

Myers & McCaulley, 1985).

Persons with a preference for Judging most show the world in

their public persona or public face either Thinking or Feeling,

depending upon their preferences on the TF scale. Persons with a

preference for Perceiving have either Sensing or iNtuition as the

main function in their public persona. Persons with a preference

for Extraversion show the world their dominant function as part of

their public persona, while persons with a preference for

Introversion show the world their second-most prefered function,

2

i.e., their auxiliary. Thus, INTJ's show the, world most often a

preference for Thinking, but actually their most-prefered

function--their dominant--is iNtuition. ENTJ's, on the other hand,

most show the world Thinking, and Thinking is actually the dominant

for the extraverted ENTJ's.

MBTI items are forced-choice in nature and consist of paired

statements, one from either preference pole on one of the four

scales. The MBTI was designed for use with older adolescents and

adults in the normal population. Most forms of the measure have

roughly 100 scored items. Previous factor analytic investigations

of MBTI data have generally been supportive of a conclusion that

the instrument yields scores measuring the intended constructs

(e.g., Thompson & Borrello, 1986).

A pair of studies reported in the Manual (Myers & McCaulley,

1985) by Carskadon used self-estimate of type as a validity

measure. When subjects were asked to choose the type description

that best suited them, their actual MBTI-tested type was chosen to

a statistically significant degree more often than other types.

These studies prompted us to explore the utility of a short-

form measure of type preferences developed by Thompson (1994); this

measure is an adjectival self-description checklist--the Personal

Preferences Self-Description Questionnaire (PPDSQ). The MBTI

itself includes several items involving adjectival self-description

and this, taken with the previous research involving self-

estimation of type, together suggest that adjectival self-

description may provide a sufficient basis with which to

3

6

tentatively identify type.

The purpose of our present study was to explore the

reliability of PPSDQ scores, the concurrent validity of PPSDQ

scores in relation to MBTI continuous scores, and the construct

validity of PPSDQ scores. The study was conducted as a second step

in an iterative sequence of PPSDQ test revisions and refinements,

building on the previous work reported by Thompson and Stone

(1994).

Method

Subiects

We administered MBTI Form G and the PPDSQ self-descriptive

adjectival checklist to 420 college students enrolled in a private

university located in the southern United States in an urban

setting. There were more females (n1=273; 65.0%) than males

(n2=147; 35.0%) in our sample. The mean age of the sample was 23.82

(SD=9.58).

Instrumentation

The PPDSQ (Thompson, 1994) consists of 59 scored adjective-

pairs posited to mark each of the four dimensions of personality

measured by the MBTI. Roughly half the PPSDQ items measuring each

of the four constructs were reversed so as to minimize response

set. For example, item 1 ("Quiet-Expressive") measures EI, but the

Introversion adjective ("Quiet") is presented first within the

pair. Item 6 ("Social-Private") also measures EI, but the

Extraversion adjective ("Social") is presented first within this

adjective pair.

4

Each adjective pair is presented as a semantic differential

scale. A Likert scale ("1" to "7") is presented between each pair

of adjectives, and subjects circle the number that represents which

adjective best describes them. Thus, unlike the MBTI which uses an

"ipsative" or forced-choice response format, the PPDSQ uses a

"normative" or non-forced-choice response format.

Results

Presumptions Underlying Analytic Choices

In the present study the primary analyses involved classical

reliability statistics and principal components analyses. Prior to

elaborating these results, some discussion of the presumptions

underlying our major analytic methods seems warranted.

The Nature of Reliability. Unlike many researchers, we

consciously recognized that reliability is a characteristic of

scores or data in hand, and generally ought to be investigated for

every given data set. Many authors present this view, but paradigm

influences constrain some researchers from integrating this

presumption into their actual analytic practice (Thompson, in

press).

For example, Rowley (1976, p. 53, emphasis added) noted that,

"It needs to be established that an instrument itself is neither

reliable nor unreliable.... A single instrument can produce scores

which are reliable, and other scores which are unreliable." And

Crocker and Algina (1986, p. 144, emphasis added) argued that,

"...A test is not 'reliable' or 'unreliable.' Rather, reliability

is a property of the scores on a test for a particular group of

5

examinees."

In another widely respected text, Gronlund and Linn (1990,

78, emphasis in original) correctly noted,

Reliability refers to the results obtained with an

evaluation instrument and not to the instrument

itself.... Thus, it is more appropriate to speak of

the reliability of the "test scores" or of the

"measurement" than of the "test" or the

"instrument."

And Eason (1991, p. 84, emphasis added) argued that:

Though some practitioners of the classical

measurement paradigm (incorrectly] speak of

reliability as a characteristic of tests, in fact

reliability is a characteristic of data, albeit data

generated on a given measure administered with a

given protocol to given subjects on given occasions.

The sample itself impacts the reliability of scores.

Reliability is driven by variance--typically greater scores

variance leads to greater score reliability, and so more

heterogeneous samples often lead to more variable scores, and thus

to higher reliability. If the test could be reliable, score

reliability would logically not be influenced by to whom the test

was administered. Obviously, this is not the case!

The same measure, when administered to more heterogenous or

more homogeneous sets of subjects, will yield scores with differing

reliability. As Dawes (1987, p. 486) observed, "Because

P

6

reliability is a function of sample as well as of instrument, it

should be evaluated on a sample from the intended target

population--an obvious but sometimes overlooked point."

Our shorthand ways of speaking (e.g., language saying "the

test is reliable") can itself'cause confusion and lead to bad

practice. As Pedhazur and Schmelkin (1991, p. 82, emphasis in

original) observed, "Statements about the reliability of a measure

are... inappropriate and potentially misleading." These

telegraphic ways of speaking can be problematic, if we come

unconsciously to ascribe truth to our literal shorthand, rather

than recognize that our jargon is sometimes telegraphic and not

literally true. As Thompson (1992, p. 436) emphasizes:

This is not just an issue of sloppy speaking--the

problem is that sometimes we unconsciously come to

think what we say or what we hear, so that sloppy

speaking does sometimes lead to a more pernicious

outcome, sloppy thinking and sloppy practice.

The Utility of Principal Components Analyses for Informing

Judgments Regarding Construct Validity. With respect to using

factor analysis to help judge score validity, many researchers

acknowledge the prominent role that factor analysis can play in

efforts to establish construct validity. For example, Nunnally

(1978, p. 111) noted that, historically, "construct \lidity has

been spoken of ar [both] 'trait validity' and 'factorial

validity.'"

Similarly, Gorsuch (1983, p. 350) noted that, "A prime use of

7

10

factor analysis has been in the development of both the operational

constructs for an area and the operational representatives for the

theoretical'constructs." In short, "factor analysis is intimately

involved with questions of validity.... Factor analysis is at the

heart of the measurement of psychological constructs" (Nunnally,

1978, pp. 112-113).

But analysts differ quite heatedly over the utility of

principal components as compared to common or principal factor

analysis. For example, an entire special issue on this controversy

was recently published in the 1992 volume of Multivariate

Behavioral Research. The difference between the two approaches

involves the entries used on the diagonal of the correlation matrix

that is analyzed--principal components analysis uses ones on the

diagonal while common factor analysis uses estimates of

reliability, usually estimated through an iterative process.

The two methods yield increasingly more equivalent results as

either (a) the factored variables are more reliable or (b) the

number of variables being factored is increased. Snook and Gorsuch

(1989, p. 149) explained this second point, noting that "As the

number of variables decreases, the ratio of diagonal to off-

diagonal elements also decreases, and therefore the value of the

communality has an increasing effect on the analysis." For

example, with 10 variables the 10 diagonal entries in the

correlation matrix represent 10% (10 / 100) of the 100 entries in

the matrix, but with 100 variables the diagonal entries represent

only 1% (100 / 10,000) of the 10,000 matrix entries. Gorsuch

8

11

(1983) suggested that with 30 or more variables the differences

between solutions from the two methods are likely to be small and

lead to similar interpretations.

Anylsis #1: Score Reliability (v=59+8 and v=59)

We first computed classical, corrected, item discrimination

(i.e., is between scores on each item -- potentially ranging from

"1" to "7"--and scores on all the remaining items in each of the

four scales--potentially ranging from "v" [17 items x 1] to "v times

7") and scale alpha coefficients (cf. Thompson & Levitov, 1985).

For each scale we conducted analyses both (a) for PPSDQ scale items

and the 2 relevant continuous scores from the MBTI (e.g., the

Extraversion and the Introversion scores from the EI scale) and (b)

for only PPSDQ items. The first analysis uses MBTI scores to help

delineate or "mark" the construct measured in a given analysis.

These analyses are reported in Tables 1 through 8.

INSERT TABLES 1 THROUGH 8 ABOUT HERE.

Anylsis #2: Factor Structure (v=59+8 and v=59)

Next, we extracted four principal components from the inter-

item correlation matrix and rotated these factors to the varimax

criterion. In this initial factor analysis we used both scores on

the 59 PPSDQ items plus continuous scores on each pair of scores

for each of the four scales from the MBTI (i.e., MBTI scores on E,

I, S, N, T, F, J, and P). Thus, this analysis involved 67 (59+8)

items. Figure 1 presents the "scree" plot of the eigenvalues

associated with the factors prior to rotation (Thompson, 1989).

9

Table 9 presents the factor pattern/structure matrix rotated to the

varZmax criterion. The items in the table are sorted into the four

scales (i.e., SN, TF, EI, and JP) presumed to be measured by the

PPSDQ.

INSERT FIGURE 1 AND TABLE 9 ABOUT HERE.

Figure 2 presents the "scree" plot for the related analysis

involving only the 59 PPSDQ items. Table 10 presents the factor

pattern/structure matrix rotated to the varimax criterion. Factor

scores were also computed for each subject on each factor, for use

in concurrent validity analyses.

INSERT FIGURE 2 AND TABLE 10 ABOUT HERE.

Analysis #3: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Scale Scores (v=12)

Confirmatory analyses were also conducted using covariance

structure analyses. The bivariate correlation matrix involving (a)

the 8 MBTI scale scores and (b) the 4 summated scale scores

computed by adding item responses on the items defining each PPDSQ

scale was the basis for these LISREL analyses (JOreskog & Sorbom,

1989).

The a priori model positing the existence of four correlated

factors yielded a x2 of 424.00 (df = 48; noncentrality parameter =

424.00 48 = 376.00; 376.00/48 = 7.83). The LISREL goodness-of-

fit index (GFI) was .76. The comprative baseline for the analysis

was a null model positing 12 uncorrelated factors and no

measurement error; this model yielded a x2 of 5,153.24 (df = 66;

10

13

noncentrality parameter = 5,153.24 66 = 5,087.24; 5,087.24/66 =

77.08). The LISREL goodness-of-fit index (GFI) for the null model

was .24. The test of the theoretical model is reported in Table

11.

INSERT TABLE 11 ABOUT HERE.

Analysis #4: Concurrent Validity of Scale and Factor Scores

The last analysis involved computed concurrent validity

coefficients on the 8 MBTI continuous scale scores, the 4 PPSDQ

factor scores computed as part on Analysis #2, and the 4 PPSDQ

summated scores computed by adding a subject's responses to all the

items on a given scale. These analyses are reported in both Tables

12 and 13.

INSERT TABLES 12 AND 13 ABOUT HERE.

Discussion

As is always the case, no one study taken alone should be

overinterpreted. As Neale and Liebert (1986, p. 290) observed:

No one study, however shrewdly designed and

carefully executed, can provide convincing support

for a causal hypothesis or theoretical statement...

Too many possible (if not plausible) confounds,

limitations on generality, and alternative

interpretations can be offered for any one

observation. Moreover, each of the basic methods of

research (experimental, correlational, and case

11

14

study) and techniques of comparison (within- or

between-subjects) has intrinsic limitations. How,

then, does social science theory advance through

research? The answer is, by collecting a diverse

body of evidence about any major theoretical

proposition.

Nevertheless, some tentative conclusions can be offered, based

on these results. First, as indicated in Table 1 through 8, it is

possible to derive scores from the PPSDQ that have reasonable

internal consistency. The most problematic of the four scales,

from this perspective, is the JP scale.

Differential scale performance for JP is indicated by the

remaining analyses as well. For example, in the exploratory factor

analysis reported in Tables 9 and 10, the JP scale tended to merge

with the SN scale. In the confirmatory factor analysis reported in

Table 11, the JP and SN scales were most highly correlated (r =

+.515; r2 = 26.5%), while all the other pairs of factors had

interfactor correlation coefficients ranging at the extremes from

1.0861 to 1.2621 (i.e., r2 values ranging from 0.7% to 6.95%). And

in the Pearson r and Spearman rho matrices presented in Tables 12

and 13, although PPSDQ Judging-Perceiving scores were highly

correlated with MBTI J and P continuous scores (e.g., r = -.6951

and r +.6911, respectively), PPSDQ Judging-Perceiving scores were

also highly correlated with MBTI J and P continuous scores (e.g.,

r = -.4165 and r +.4250, respectively).

It may be that more adjective self-description semantic-

12

differential items are needed to measure the JP scale. However,

taken together with previous results (Thompson & Stone, 1994),

these results may alternatively suggest that the JP scale is harder

to measure using semantic differential items. Items consisting of

complete sentences may be needed to elaborate this construct. These

alternatives remain to be explored in future research.

In summary, results in the present study were generally

favorable regarding at least three of the four constructs presumed

to be measured by the PPSDQ. Additional items need to be

formulated to tap the fourth (JP) dimension. Further research

using the original PPSDQ items together with additional items would

allow both replication of present and previous results, as well as

exploration of improvements resulting from use of an additional set

of JP items.

13

16

References

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and

modern test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Dawes, R.V. (1987). Scale construction. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 34, 481-489.

Eason, S. (1991). Why generalizability theory yields better results

than classical test theory: A primer with concrete examples.

In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in educational research:

Substantive findings, methodological developments (Vol. 1, pp.

83-98). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Gorsuch, R.L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Gronlund, N.E., & Linn, R.L. (1990). Measurement and evaluation in

teaching (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the

program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS.

McCaulley, M.H. (1990). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A measure

for individuals and groups. Measurement and Evaluation in

Counseling and Development, 22, 181-195.

Myers, I.B. & McCaulley, M.H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the

development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Neale, J.M., & Liebert, R.M. (1986). Science and behavior: An

introduction to methods of research (3rd ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:

14

17

McGraw-Hill.

Pedhazur, E.J., & Schmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement, design, and

analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rowley, G.L. (1976). The reliability of observational measures.

American Educational Research Journal, 13, 51-59.

Snook, S.C., & Gorsuch, R.L. (1989). Component analysis versus

common factor analysis: A Monte Carlo study. Psychological

Bulletin, 106, 148-154.

Thompson, B. (1989). Prerotation and postrotation eigenvalues

shouldn't be confused: A reminder. Measurement and Evaluation

in Counseling and Development,.22(3), 114-116.

Thompson, B. (1992). Two and one-half decades of leadership in

measurement and evaluation. Journal of Counseling and

Development, 70, 434-438.

Thompson, B. (1994). Personal Preferences Self-Description

Questionnaire (PPSDO). College Station, TX: Author.

Thompson, B. (in press). Guidelines for authors. Educational and

Psychological Measurement.

Thompson, B., & Ackerman, C. (1994). Review of the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator. In J. Kapes, M. Mastie & E. Whitfield (Eds.),

A counselor's guide to career assessment instruments (3rd ed.,

pp. 283-287). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Thompson, B., & Borrello, G.M. (1986). Second-order factor

structure of the MBTI: A construct validity assessment.

Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 18,

148-153.

15

is

Thompson, B., & Levitov, J.E. (1985). Using microcomputers to score

and evaluate test items. Collegiate Microcomputer, 3, 163-168.

Thompson, B., & Stone, E. (1994, January). Concurrent validity of

scores from an adjectival self-description checklist in

relation to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) scores. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational

Research Association, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED forthcoming)

Table 1Classical Reliability Statistics for

Extraversion-Introversion Scale (n=420, v=17)

SCALEMEANIF ITEMDELETED

SCALEVARIANCEIF ITEMDELETED

CORRECTEDITEM-TOTAL

CORRELATION

ALPHAIF ITEMDELETED

MIXERLON 46.1747 602.3110 .7376 .8388SOCPRIVA 45.7057 598.6838 .7113 .8383XINTREXT 45.7700 602.3286 .6953 .8393XSILENGA 45.4083 608.2712 .6415 .8412PERSNSHY 46.2319 601.0915 .6718 .8393XQUIETEX 46.2366 608.0975 .6315 .8413GREGARTI 45.8092 622.8944 .5176 .8455CONGRECL 46.1057 623.6358 .5205 .8456FRIEDIST 47.0975 625.2314 .4981 .8462XSOLIAMI 46.0742 624.5341 .5146 .8459EXUBSERE 45.2342 625.1357 .4413 .8469XSTILLAN 46.2700 628.3960 .4230 .8476XREFLECA 45.7019 627.8653 .3541 .8488APPROACH 45.9057 631.3995 .2974 .8503XTERSEWO 45.5754 645.2465 .1773 .8534XEXTRAVE 63.4676 381.2318 .8843 .8276INTROVER 36.1223 372.0286 .8573 .8379a = 0.8516

Note. MBTI continuous variables are italicized.

Table 2Classical Reliability Statistics for

Extraversion-Introversion Scale (n=420, v=15)

SCALEMEANIF ITEMDELETED

SCALEVARIANCEIF ITEMDELETED

CORRECTEDITEM-TOTAL

CORRELATION

ALPHAIF ITEMDELETED

MIXERLON 47.1533 154.6882 .7298 .8547SOCPRIVA 46.6842 153.3749 .6867 .8562XINTREXT 46.7485 154.6072 .6871 .8564XSILENGA 46.3869 157.8355 .6263 .8597PERSNSHY 47.2104 152.4019 .7025 .8552XQUIETEX 47.2152 157.3937 .6251 .8597GREGARTI 46.7878 165.1652 .5064 .8656CONGRECL 47.0842 164.1198 .5543 .8637

FRIEDIST 48.0761 165.3362 .5192 .8652XSOLIAMI 47.0527 164.6010 .5485 .8640EXUBSERE 46.2128 165.7207 .4427 .8685XSTILLAN 47.2485 167.2928 .4297 .8689XREFLECA 46.6804 168.2260 .3215 .8751APPROACH 46.8842 168.0372 .3104 .8761XTERSEWO 46.5539 176.3760 .1706 .8798a = 0.8727

Table 3Classical Reliability Statistics forSensing-Intuition Scale

SCALE SCALEMEAN VARIANCEIF ITEM IF ITEMDELETED DELETED

(n=420, v=16)

CORRECTEDITEM-TOTAL

CORRELATION

ALPHAIF ITEMDELETED

TRADCREA 56.3901 487.2768 .5016 .7882PRECIMAG 56.5491 484.4952 .5474 .7865XINVENOR 56.9277 485.3414 .5483 .7867PLANVISI 56.5563 490.3602 .5197 .7888CONCLEXP 56.1444 497.7096 .4446 .7923XINSIGHT 56.4848 490.2759 .4843 .7894XDIVERCO 56.5405 490.5354 .4695 .7898REALINTU 57.5214 494.9152 .3872 .7927XDIVERPR 56.7410 489.9822 .4851 .7893XCONCEPR 57.7958 500.9453 .3385 .7951DIRECTIN 56.7720 500.9396 .3881 .7941PRACTHEO 57.8269 503.1276 .3143 .7961XVARIREP 55.8944 502.4458 .3549 .7950XINQUICR 56.4705 504.3441 .2959 .7967XSENSING 73.8086 259.4891 .8153 .7811INTUITIO 49.2063 314.6216 .7908 .7536a = 0.8001

Note. MBTI continuous variables are italicized.

Table 4Classical Reliability Statistics forSensing-Intuition Scale

SCALE SCALEMEAN VARIANCEIF ITEM IF ITEMDELETED DELETED

(n=420, v=14)

CORRECTEDITEM-TOTAL

CORRELATION

ALPHAIF ITEMDELETED

TRADCREA 57.0544 115.6057 .4639 .8070PRECIMAG 57.2134 112.3761 .5704 .7986XINVENOR 57.5920 112.2504 .5901 .7973PLANVISI 57.2205 115.1862 .5500 .8010CONCLEXP 56.8086 119.9100 .4377 .8091XINSIGHT 57.1491 114.7054 .5225 .8026XDIVERCO 57.2048 113.8563 .5362 .8014REALINTU 58.1857 119.3624 .3454 .8163XDIVERPR 57.4052 112.7259 .5822 .7980XCONCEPR 58.4601 123.7873 .2527 .8219DIRECTIN 57.4363 120.8139 .4039 .8113PRACTHEO 58.4911 124.9905 .2241 .8235XVARIREP 56.5586 120.5781 .4027 .8113XINQUICR 57.1348 120.6542 .3624 .8142a = 0.8196

1821

Table 5Classical Reliability Statistics forThinking-Feeling Scale

SCALE SCALEMEAN VARIANCE

IF ITEM IF ITEMDELETED DELETED

(n=420, v=23)

CORRECTEDITEM-TOTAL

CORRELATION

ALPHAIF ITEMDELETEDFACTCOMP 90.8783 647.3906 .6542 .8262XTENDERR 91.3079 651.8917 .5602 .8281XFEELTHI 91.3351 648.7238 .5286 .8280XKINDANA 90.8899 651.8594 .5366 .8284STRICTFO 90.5608 659.8229 .4988 .8301DISPASEM 90.3090 660.3387 .4928 .8303SKEPTRUS 91.2304 653.7754 .4711 .8296XEMPATHL 92.1162 659.0428 .4306 .8310LOGICHUM 91.4018 658.5109 .4477 .8306XLIGHTHE 90.8470 662.4211 .4403 .8313XGULLSUS 92.3113 667.0988 .3877 .8326XCARICOO 90.3985 665.2417 .3931 .8323XACCEPDI 90.6590 662.8569 .4146 .8317

XRECEPTS 91.5375 666.1008 .3584 .8330EVALNONJ 91.6899 665.5734 .3591 .8329XSYMPATH 92.0351 671.7724 .2668 .8353JUSTHARM 91.7113 669.8833 .2852 .8348EVALOPEN 91.0804 670.5456 .2949 .8346PRINCIPL 91.2182 668.4790 .2945 .8345IMPERPER 90.2280 676.7697 .2947 .8350XSENSUAL 90.9904 678.9460 .2036 .8369XTHINKIN 106.5970 386.8658 .8239 .8337FEELING 85.5209 487.3821 .7781 .8094a = 0.8373

Note. MBTI continuous variables are italicized.

19

Table 6Classical Reliability Statistics forThinking-Feeling Scale

SCALE SCALEMEAN VARIANCEIF ITEM IF ITEMDELETED DELETED

(n=420, v=21)

CORRECTEDITEM-TOTAL

CORRELATION

ALPHAIF ITEMDELETED

FACTCOMP 91.4640 218.5737 .6521 .8178XTENDERR 91.8936 222.1404 .5326 .8226XFEELTHI 91.9209 221.1924 .4811 .8245XKINDANA 91.4756 220.8364 .5372 .8221STRICTFO 91.1465 225.5817 .4999 .8244DISPASEM 90.8947 226.3701 .4817 .8252SKEPTRUS 91.8161 221.7894 .4713 .8250XEMPATHL 92.7019 227.1178 .3835 .8292LOGICHUM 91.9875 225.6744 .4252 .8272XLIGHTHE 91.4328 226.4460 .4546 .8261XGULLSUS 92.8970 231.0177 .3584 .8301XCARICOO 90.9843 228.7260 .3911 .8288XACCEPDI 91.2447 226.2817 .4361 .8268XRECEPTS 92.1232 229.1622 .3557 .8304EVALNONJ 92.2756 228.1742 .3705 .8297XSYMPATH 92.6209 235.8533 .1935 .8381JUSTHARM 92.2970 231.1845 .2830 .8341EVALOPEN 91.6661 230.5495 .3163 .8322PRINCIPL 91.8040 228.5244 .3279 .8320IMPERPER 90.8137 233.9129 .3391 .8309XSENSUAL 91.5761 235.3526 .2292 .8358a = 0.8352

202

Table 7Classical Reliability Statistics forJudging-Perceiving Scale

SCALE SCALEMEAN VARIANCEIF ITEM IF ITEMDELETED DELETED

(n=420, v=11)

CORRECTEDITEM-TOTAL

CORRELATION

ALPHAIF ITEMDELETED

XFLEXORG 35.6095 452.6252 .5669 .7689PROMPTFR 35.3557 449.2314 .5830 .7671XRANDSEQ 35.7795 456.0741 .5535 .7708TIMELYRE 35.3581 454.8683 .5342 .7706XIMPETTA 36.1057 466.6009 .4686 .7769XIMPULDE 35.5890 465.1584 .4257 .7772RESPADAP 36.3010 464.2617 .3718 .7784DECICURI 35.0867 477.7416 .2469 .7856XCAREFRE 35.4152 463.5515 .4247 .7766XJUDGING 52.1652 236.9432 .8948 .7022PERCEIVIa = 0.7848

25.3152 223.1693 .8861 .7167

Note. MBTI continuous variables are italicized.

Table 8Classical Reliability Statistics forJudging-Perceiving Scale (n=420, v=9)

SCALEMEANIF ITEMDELETED

SCALEVARIANCEIF ITEMDELETED

CORRECTEDITEM-TOTAL

CORRELATION

ALPHAIF ITEMDELETED

XFLEXORG 33.4738 61.9062 .4710 .7502PROMPTFR. 33.2200 58.6314 .5701 .7341XRANDSEQ 33.6438 60.9403 .5552 .7380TIMELYRE 33.2224 60.5984 .5251 .7418XIMPETTA 33.9700 65.2885 .4560 .7535XIMPULDE 33.4533 63.7961 .4429 .7544RESPADAP 34.1652 63.7136 .3606 .7682DECICURI 32.9510 67.8656 .2873 .7751XCAREFRE 33.2795 62.9391 .4471 .7538a = 0.7739

Table 9Principal Components Analysis

of 59 PPSDQ Variables and 8 MBTI Continuous Scale Scores(n = 420, v = 67)

FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4

MIXERLON .09798 .76580 .12198 .17371

SOCPRIVA .16185 .72669 .10241 .16708

INTREXTR -.14694 -.73497 -.04102 -.08167SILENGAB .00604 -.69603 .01098 .08756

PERSNSHY .06954 .76130 .07283 .01396

QUIETEXP -.14331 -.71356 .02916 .15914

GREGARTI .11608 .61047 -.08241 -.14468CONGRECL .04493 .58131 .22576 .04900FRTEDIST .00598 .54446 .33912 .24408SOLIAMIC -.01635 -.57541 -.16895 -.11101EXUBSERE .01839 .52256 -.07160 -.16903STILLANI -.25138 -.46612 -.10626 .22697REFLECAC -.07017 -.39998 .11672 -.30092APPROACH -.14874 .33052 .25744 .20265TERSEWOR .04411 -.20887 -.16069 .23533

EXTRAVER -.08734 -.83588 -.07625 -.05765INTROVER .07975 .82202 .03115 .04266TRADCREA -.39114 -.20472 -.07130 .27441

PRECIMAG -.50480 -.07402 -.26647 .28183

INVENORG .65163 .07157 .06847 -.22385PLANVISI -.52907 -.10889 -.12582 .28745CONCLEXP -.46539 -.09282 -.09253 .1597INSIGHTS .46938 .12253 .19690 -.26435DIVERCON .53006 .22126 .13397 -.10605REALINTU -.24074 .00661 -.26714 .40846DIVERPRE .53842 .21103 .17220 -.17612CONCEPRE .20290 -.17531 -.02025 -.49527DIRECTIN -.32901 -.18801 -.06996 .28574

PRACTHEO -.22529 .08879 .07723 .42507VARIREPI .40447 .25618 .09087 -.01536INQUICRI .30967 .13532 .32427 .00304

SENSING .56729 .07476 .13743 -.52622INTUITIO -.55627 -.01079 -.14620 .50692FACTCOMP -.15102 -.10653 -.68636 .14986TENDERRA .13695 .00378 .61299 -.13407FEELTHIN .01319 .14784 .58127 -.02405KINDANAL .02772 .09428 .60442 .28266

STRICTFO -.25264 -.07131 -.51267 -.18560DISPASEM .07436 -.18164 -.56144 .18529

SKEPTRUS -.13781 -.06767 -.50433 -.32860EMPATHLO .10078 -.09251 .49878 -.24188LOGICHUM -.18645 .01949 -.47804 .14341

LIGHTHEA .31251 .13241 .42186 .07547

GULLSUSP .02779 -.06599 .46025 .11366

CARICOOL -.09240 .19384 .49958 -.05781ACCEPDIS .16384 .17598 .42736 .30983

RECEPTSE .16269 .15654 .38515 .04387

EVALNONJ -.31397 .05331 -.38097 -.14301SYMPATHY -.05152 -.05087 .34039 -.10590TUSTHARM -.17067 .07609 -.33016 -.03317

2 22

EVALOPEN -.24782 -.17206 -.27107 -.16789PRINCIPL -.15305 -.20917 -.29774 -.19792IMPERPER .04478 -.24421 -.37489 .08658SENSUALI .09831 .10012 .23970 -.07497THINKING .12048 -.02762 .83890 -.04635FEELING -.09248 .05752 -.78199 .10323FLEXORGA .63006 .01380 .01942 .06299PROMPTFR -.66313 -.13301 -.05397 -.02819RANDSEQU .62748 .01717 .07887 .02455TIMELYRE -.61195 -.01230 -.09535 -.22273IMPETTAS .51962 -.01700 .06819 -.09822IMPULDEL .48408 .11276 .10313 .05960RESPADAP -.44436 .12569 .07557 .10697DECICURI -.27679 .03029 -.20847 .09560CAREFREE .54022 .04760 .32774 .29978JUDGING .82719 .00185 .01155 .01741PERCEIVI -.81741 -.00522 -.00480 .00511

Note. MBTI continuous variables are italicized.

2326

Table 10Principal Components Analysis

of 59(n =

FACTOR 1

PPSDQ Variables420, v = 59)

FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4

MIXERLON -.07032 .75540 .21454 .02571SOCPRIVA -.11309 .71574 .22049 -.01138INTREXTR .13523 -.72812 -.14890 .05664SILENGAB .04450 -.68949 .10593 -.08007PERSNSHY -.07752 .76974 .06533 .09001QUIETEXP .20472 -.70916 .06775 -.01313GREGARTI -.17550 .61145 -.13132 .01986CONGRECL -.02234 .59453 .18430 .17331FRIEDIST .07018 .55307 .36338 .20952SOLIAMIC -.03486 -.58697 -.22764 -.07342EXUBSERE -.06263 .53461 -.19884 .08578STILLANI .32589 -.45540 -.01672 -.09848REFLECAC -.02597 -.41319 -.18822 .29224APPROACH .22028 .34494 .25565 .15171TERSEWOR .04993 -.19459 .11536 -.28967TRADCREA .47390 -.19045 -.03606 -.05335PRECIMAG .58705 -.04192 -.09918 -.26782INVENORG -.69738 .05556 .00547 .09530PLANVISI .61890 -.08268 -.02538 -.12046CONCLEXP .51901 -.07102 -.08584 -.05203INSIGHTS -.54221 .11418 .01032 .27842DIVERCON -.55267 .20764 .13174 .10447REALINTU .37666 .05136 .01926 -.31183DIVERPRE -.58661 .20629 .06512 .19925CONCEPRE -.35126 -.20992 -.27520 .14425DIRECTIN .43930 -.18020 .05075 -.09956PRACTHEO .34682 .12544 .24447 -.04115VARIREPI -.40211 .27768 .14916 .03531INQUICRI -.30391 .13571 .25019 .24203FACTCOMP .20836 -.07409 -.34457 -.59425TENDERRA -.20865 -.02944 .25565 .57298FEELTHIN -.02052 .12887 .25461 .54564KINDANAL .06427 .08187 .55299 .36125STRICTFO .17033 -.06206 -.58296 -.18935DISPASEM .00494 -.14713 -.16164 -.59188SKEPTRUS .00068 -.05327 -.64388 -.14395EMPATHLO -.18588 -.12515 .10099 .55310LOGICHUM .23452 .05007 -.22230 -.42708LIGHTHEA -.28174 .11178 .36008 .27610GULLSUSP .03623 -.09735 .39808 .28084CARICOOL .07377 .20000 .22319 .48937ACCEPDIS -.04556 .17572 .55561 .12681RECEPTSE - .12008 .14157 .34956 .23021EVALNONJ .25:141 .07324 -.52419 -.06660SYMPATHY .02470 -.05004 .01116 .42314JUSTHARM .14046 .10733 -.33184 -.16843'ALOPEN .18093 -.14378 -.40647 -.03346

PRINCIPL .08730 -.20291 -.40177 -.07707IMPERPER -.00059 -.22780 -.14129 -.41645SENSUALI -.13708 .06940 .02618 .34332

24

2i

FLEXORGA -.56157 .01137 .15353 -.04255PROMPTFR .62710 -.12000 -.20690 .09418RANDSEQU -.59109 .00427 .17845 -.02074TIMELYRE .49096 -.01408 -.39844 .19470IMPETTAS -.52884 -.03366 .04728 .04724IMPULDEL -.46839 .11088 .15586 .02414RESPADAP .46962 .14913 -.01687 .14737DECICURI .30133 .04129 -.12709 -.16114CAREFREE -.41680 .03308 .57972 -.01717

Table 11LISREL Maximum-Likelihood Confirmatory Factor Analysis

of 8 MBTI Continuous Scores and 4 PPSDQ Summated Scale Scores

LAMBDA XEXTRINTR

(n=420,

SENSINTU

v=12)

THINFEEL JUDGPERCThetaDelta

FINTREXT 0.782 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.389EXTRAVER -0.990 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021INTROVER 0.955 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.088FSENSINT 0.000 0.680 0.000 0.000 0.538SENSING 0.000 -0.962 0.000 0.000 0.075INTUITIO 0.000 0.929 0.000 0.000 0.138FTHINFEE 0.000 0.000 0.746 0.000 0.443THINKING 0.000 0.000 -0.982 0.000 0.036FEELING 0.000 0.000 0.894 0.000 0.201FJUDGPER 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.707 0.500JUDGING 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.984 0.031PERCEIVI 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.980 0.040

PHI

EXTRINTRSENSINTUTHINFEELJUDGPERC

EXTRINTR

1.000-0.086- 0.1060.117

SENSINTU

1.0000.2620.515

THINFEEL

1.0000.172

JUDGPERC

Note. MBTI continuous variables are italicized.

1.000

EXTRAVER

INTROVER

SENSING

INTUITIO

THINKING

FEELING

JUDGING

PERCEIVI

FINTREXT

FSENSINT

FTHINFEE

FJUDGPER

FSCORE1

FSCORE2

FSCORE3

FSCORE4

Table 12

Pearson r Coefficients for 8 MBTI

Continuous Scale Scores

with PPDSQ Summated Scale and Factor Scores

(n = 420)

EXTRAVER INTROVER SENSING

1.0000

INTUITIO THINKING FEELING

JUGGING

PERCEIVI FINTREXT FSENSINT FTHINFEE FJUDGPER FSCORE1

FSCORE2

-.9449**

1.0000

-.0843

.0894

1.0000

.0503

-.0161

-.8955**

1.0000

-.0954

.0770

.2426**

-.2187**

1.0000

-.0480

-.2165**

.2280**

-.8778**

1.0000

.1011*

-.1076*

.0'33

.4653**

-.4711**

.1624**

-.1658**

1.0000

.1262**

-.0872

-.4537**

.4868**

-.1423**

.1847**

-.9647**

1.0000

.1102*

-.7730**

.7475**

.1249*

-.0791

.1085*

-.0751

-.1134*

1.0000

.1646**

-.1602**

-.6553**

.6054**

-.2653**

.2154**

-.5326**

.5292**

-.2530w*

1.0000

.2320**

-.1881**

-.2327**

.2340**

-.7325**

.6584**

-.2052**

.1947**

-.2997**

.3854**

1.0000

-.2463**

.2307**

.1435**

-.1335**

-.4165**

.4250**

-.6951**

.6911**

-.1631**

.6264**

.3664**

1.0000

-.6700**

.6677**

.0828

-.0886

-.6140**

-.1260**

.1114*

-.1004*

.8897**

.2055**

.8307**

1.0000

.0530

.5831**

.0066

-.1508**

-.0130

-.7520**

.7324**

-.0466

.0743

.0149

-.0171

.9637**

-.1218*

.0000

1.0000

.1422**

-.1068*

.0703

-.0155

.0074

.4777**

-.3689**

.1700**

-.1424**

-.0348

-.6767**

-.3503**

.0000

.0000

.5677**

-.5683**

-.6720**

-.0454

.0140

.1476**

-.1614**

-.0763

.0648

.0958*

-.2725**

.0626

.0000

.0000

FSCORE3

FSCORE4

1.0000

.0000

1.0000

Note.

Selected coefficients bearing upon

concurrent validity have been

underlined.

PPSDQ

summated scale scores are named

"FINTREXT" to "FJUDGPER".

3127

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

Table 13Spearman rho Coefficients for 8 MBTI Continuous Scale Scores

with PPDSQ Summated Scale and Factor Scores(n = 420)

INTROVER -.9407

SENSING -.0783 .0830

INTUITIO .0477 -.0151 -.9078

THINKING -.0901 .0656 .2505 -.2140

FEELING .0980 -.0404 -.2223 .2208 -.8880

JUDGING -.1009 .0825 .4635 -.4602 .1637 -.1657

PERCEIVI .1268 -.0851 -.4501 .4734 -.1458 .1830 -.9658

FINTREXT -.7720 .7411 .1137 -.0698 .1170 -.0824 .1029 -.1126

FSENSINT .1772 -.1720 -.6555 .6000 -.2659 .2267 -.5235 .5200 -.2768

FTHINFEE .2251 -.1747 -.2293 .2272 -.6908 .6306 -.2214 .2164 -.3075 .4070

FJUOGPER .1331 -.1281 -.4160 .4197 -.2303 .2355 -.6990 .6988 -.1426 .6052 .3738

FSCORE1 .1071 -.1119 -.6178 .5840 -.1492 .1468 -.6810 .6800 -.1221 .8721 .2527 .8297

FSCORE2 -.7545 .7315 .0483 .0035 -.0265 .0581 .0196 -.0289 .9623 -.1725 -.1455 -.0058 -.0208

FSCORE3 -.1167 .0728 .0032 -.0266 .4594 -.3773 .1771 -.1626 .1614 -.1024 -.6712 -.3697 -.0782 .0293

FSCORE4 -.0392 .0015 .1687 -.1682 .5476 -.5570 -.0472 .0435 .1078 -.2880 -.6546 .0210 -.0353 .0153 .0369

EXTRAVER INTROVER SENSING INTUITIO THINKING FEELING JUOGING PERCEIVI FINTREXT FSENSINT FTHINFEE FJUOGPER FSCORE1 FSCORE2 FSCORE3

Note. Selected coefficients bearing upon concurrent validity have been underlined. PPSDQ

summated scale scores are named "FINTREXT" to "FJUDGPER".

3kJ'

28

Figure 1"Scree" Plot for R-technique Factor Analysis

of 59 PPSDQ Variables and 8 MBTI Continuous Scale Scores(n = 420)

11.741 + *I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

E I

G IE IN 6.318 +VAL I

E IS 4.899 +

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

2.401 +I

2.010 +1.825 + * *

I

1.241 + * * * *

.994 + * * * * * *

.722 + * * * * * * * * * *

.482 + * * *

.270 +

.000 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-4--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

Figure 2"Scree" Plot for R-technique Factor Analysis

of 59 PPSDQ Variables(n = 420)

9.809 + *I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

E I

1 I

G I

E I

N I

I

A 4.935 + *

L I

U I

E I

S I

3.814 + *

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

2.183 + *

1.876 + *

1.637 + * *

I

1.207 + * * * *

1.013 + * * * *

.833 + * * * * *

.615 + * * * * * * * * * *

.425 +

.211 +

.000 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-4.-+-+-4.-+-+-+-+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3.4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

Appendix ADescriptive Statistics

for 8

VARIABLE

MBTI Continuous

MEAN ST. DEV.

Scores and 4 PPSDQ Summated Scale Scores(n=420, v=12)

SKEWNESS KURTOSIS MINIMUM FREQ. MAXIMUM FREQ.FINTREXT 50.284 13.590 0.229 -0.252 16.000 1 88.000 1

EXTRAVER 14.162 6.749 -0.177 -0.934 0.000 1 27.000 5INTROVER 13.183 7.155 0.247 -0.919 0.000 5 29.000 1

FSENSINT 61.840 11.600 0.040 0.032 32.000 2 98.000 1

SENSING 12.633 7.821 0.450 -0.546 0.000 9 34.000 1

INTUITIO 11.969 6.178 0.115 -0.969 0.000 4 25.000 4

FTHINFEE 96.352 15.767 -0.423 0.469 44.000 1 141.000 1

THINKING 10.831 7.742 0.604 -0.466 0.000 16 33.000 1

FEELING 10.245 5.304 -0.084 -0.940 0.000 10 21.000 1

FJUDGPER 37.672 8.796 -0.078 -0.248 12.000 1 61.000 2JUDGING 12.357 7.421 0.145 -0.919 0.000 16 28.000 4

PERCEIVI 14.493 7.940 0.084 -0.921 0.000 11 30.000 4

Note. MBTI continuous variables are italicized.

36

31